Preparing for stoning a woman who committed adultery by being raped (she didn't yell loud enough?) in Iran. Yup, Godly alright. /sarcasm
Posted on 02/28/2006 6:36:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
US President George W. Bush signalled his opposition to a South Dakota abortion ban that forbids the procedure even in cases of rape or incest, saying he favors such exceptions.
But Bush declined to predict the outcome of any legal challenges to the legislation, which would make it illegal to terminate a pregnancy except in rare cases when it may be necessary to save the life of the mother.
"That, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: Rape, incest, and the life of the mother," the US president told ABC news in an interview.
Asked whether he would include "health" of the mother, Bush replied: "I said life of the mother, and health is a very vague term, but my position has been clear on that ever since I started running for office."
The bill, which recently gained final approval from South Dakota's House of Representatives, directly contradicts the precedent set in 1973 when the US Supreme Court ruled that bans on abortion violate a woman's constitutional right to privacy.
The bill grants no allowances for women who have been raped or are victims of incest. Doctors who perform abortion would be charged with a crime. It also prohibits the sale of emergency contraception and asserts that life begins at fertilization.
The governor of South Dakota has indicated he is likely to sign the bill.
A leading pro-choice advocacy group has already vowed to challenge the ban in federal court. But that seems to be exactly what many promoters of the legislation seek.
Advocates of the ban do not deny they aim much higher than South Dakota, a rural and socially conservative state, which even today has only one abortion clinic.
Instead, they are hoping the bill will offer a full frontal assault on legal abortions now that the balance of power in the Supreme Court appears to have shifted with the confirmation of conservative jurists John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom are seen as pro-life.
An interesting point--since there is no statute of limitations on murder, would millions of American women yet to be arrested murderers be tried and convicted? Millions of whom now have living children to care for. Many of us who've made the horrific mistake of having an abortion murdering someone in our younger days have already repented and are active in pro-life and conservative movements. God will judge us..and forgive those who have repented and have asked his forgiveness.
If abortion is taken to be equivalent in every way to murder, with no statute of limitations on murder, then why shouldn't all women who have undergone an abortion (in addition to the doctor performing the abortion) be tried and convicted for murder? Repenting for crimes can play a role in sentencing (and often does), but our justice system does not entirely absolve murderers, rapists, etc based on repenting.
Putting 20 or so million women in jail for murder...
That's because people don't stop to think about the women they know and like who have had abortions. They may not know who they are. It's a lot easier to refer to "murdering sluts" when you don't realize that they are cousins, sisters, friends, their secretary, their dental hygienist, or the den mother of the Scout Troop.
Why is it barbaric if God commanded it?
What do you mean by "honor killing"?
Obviously, it's not considered to be the equivalent of murder, in any way, let alone every way. The Partial Birth Abortion Act was written to specify a monetary fine or short jail term for the doctor, and was quite specific that there be NO penalty for the woman. Does that sound like the legislators considered it murder?
You can speak to me directly. But I know insane people will do what they want anyway.
Preparing for stoning a woman who committed adultery by being raped (she didn't yell loud enough?) in Iran. Yup, Godly alright. /sarcasm
And by the way, the reason I didn't respond to muawiyah is that he tends to stalk me when we get into a debate. Last time, he was suspended. I hope you hear what I'm saying Les.
See Linda_22003's post--she brings up a good point; which is that you would be surprised how many women of your own acquaintance may have had abortions. When you put a face on these women, a face you know and perhaps care for, it may change your perspective. Then again, it may not. I thank God that He is the judge of me; and that it is not you or someone who can even consider what you are suggesting. I have a 9 year old daughter, if you think I would leave that precious child motherless without a struggle, you are quite mistaken. And the 20 million or so women in my position would probably feel the same. The case against abortion is without question aided by the support of the women who've had them to their eternal regret (and I don't refer to liberal women who see abortion as some kind of right of passage; I fear their souls are long gone). Ours is a powerful testimony which has saved lives. Silencing us would be a mistake.
I'm only going to post to you once...you're a nut...and you give people here a bad name.
I have seen a video of a stoning; it was grainy and poorly lit, but I will never forget it. If I have to tell you why its barbaric, then we probably would never come to a mutual understanding. So I'm not going to try.
Are you a Christian? Are you aware that God sent His Son, Jesus to die and pay the penalty for our sin. ALL our sin deserves death, but Jesus paid the price for our sins.
Talking about stoning as God's law disregarding 'the rest of the story' is irresponsible.
"I see where you're going and it's an interesting idea.. but don't you think the Supreme Court would hold the local officials in contempt? I don't think there's any way the Justice Dept would buck the Court. Never going to happen...we should focus on some workable ideas IMO."
Yep, the Supreme Court would hold the local officials in contempt. And could do nothing about it unless the President let the Federal Marshalls, et al, enforce an order.
You want workable?
There's only one workable solution, really: leave the border open, and let time and Latino immigration keep shifting the country more and more Catholic and religiously conservative. That, in turn, will mean more Republican administrations and more justices and federal judges who will be willing to strike down Roe outright, or pare it back to the point that it's toothless.
Nothing else will work short of a takeover of the Judiciary through the democratic process.
I've heard the idea of Congress "simply" passing a law that says the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in abortion cases. This is unworkable, because, while the Supreme Court will accept laws that restrict legal jursidiction, they will strike down any law that purports to limit the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Supremes.
Roe is Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court says that the Constitution, not the law, demands it, and that the Constitution doesn't permit derogation from their regime. They will strike down anything that purports to say that the Supreme Court doesn't have plenary power to review acts of government for constitutionality, PARTICULARLY if the thing that seeks to be limited is on a dramatically controversial issue in which the Court has always been intensely interested, like abortion.
There is no quick legal fix.
Congress could pass a "No abortion jurisdiction" law, and the Supremes would strike it down before the ink was dry.
And then, as you pointed out, the Justice Department would decide if it was going to defy the Supreme Court or not.
Now, I happen to think that a determined President can command the justice department and remove it from the shadow of the courts, but to do so would require a President willing to use what would amount to an extremely aggressive constitutional strategy.
Basically, so long as there is not a 2/3rds majority of Senators willing to remove the President from office for a particular act, he can do whatever he wants for 4 years.
"Why is it barbaric if God commanded it?"
Because we don't like it.
I am indeed a Christian, and am well aware that Jesus died for my sins, and am very grateful for that. He is my Lord and Saviour.
"ALL our sin deserves death, but Jesus paid the price for our sins."
I so much agree with this and am so thankful that if we accept Him as our Saviour we will not need to pay for our sins for all eternity.
"Talking about stoning as God's law disregarding 'the rest of the story' is irresponsible."
I'm just curious, do you not believe in capital punishment? I hate it, and could not possibly be the person to flip the switch or give the injection. But I do believe that it is an injunction that God gave to government to deal with certain societal sins. I absolutely hate the thought of stoning, but evidently God thought that it was a justifiable punishment for adultery and rape.
To me it says just how awful adultery actually is that God would assign such a horrible punishment for it. I think in our society that we have come to lose our horror of adultery, and in many cases even our distaste for it.
Thankfully we are still horrified by rape.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Honor killing is the practice of a family member killing a female relative when the female relative has been considered to have brought "dishonor" to the family, often through unsanctioned sexual activity—often including cases when a woman is raped.
So how is what God commanded in the OT honor killing? God never commanded this as you are implying.
1. Rape and incest is a smokescreen. Unless there is a requirement for a police report or a judge's ruling, this exception would mean nothing. Every woman seeking an abortion would claim to have been raped.
2. The child is ripped limb from limb. There is no crime that justifies doing that to a child.
3. If a guy the woman works with happens to resemble the rapist strongly, does she have the right to kill him, or even just get him fired? There's a lot of emotional pain there, and expecting her to suffer through it seems "so incredibly wrong."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.